President Trump and NATO executive director Mark Latte have given Vladimir Putin something to really ponder. On July 14th, the announcement of a new NATO-supported weapons corridor to Ukraine, which runs through European allies, emphasizes the sale of weapons rather than grants, signaling the U.S. is not completely abandoning Ukraine.
Even if the new plans face pushback from Trump’s MAGA supporters, and even if this situation sheds light on Trump’s tradeable nature, it indicates that the U.S.-European alliance to back Ukraine is very much alive.
During their meeting in the Oval Office, Trump and Latte highlighted an eye-opening number: 100,000 Russian soldiers lost their lives in January alone. This was a rare moment of strategic clarity from Trump. He seemed to grasp that Putin isn’t just looking to take a small part of eastern Ukraine, as Trump hoped, but has wider ambitions for control over the entirety of Ukraine.
This implies Putin is quite serious about his goal of re-establishing dominance like that of the old Soviet Empire. Such ambitions can’t be ignored. Plus, the Kremlin’s willingness to play nuclear poker is concerning; they might not be bluffing.
The new NATO approach aims to strengthen President Volodymyr Zelensky’s position while repositioning NATO at the heart of a Western alliance that had started to feel obsolete. There’s a certain wariness toward Putin, who may have underestimated his ability to manipulate Trump.
But if there’s a chance to end the war without dragging it out for an additional three years, oddly enough, Trump could be in a strong position to facilitate that.
He holds the political authority to challenge his supporters. There’s a kind of credibility that, admittedly, seems a bit unsettling given past diplomatic agreements and interactions with diverse political leaders. He could gauge Putin’s seriousness and suggest bold terms to help conclude this conflict.
For instance, Trump might propose recognizing Russian sovereignty over the territories currently occupied, including a narrow passage to Crimea and areas in Zaporisia, Luhansk, and Donetsk already controlled by Russia (which amount to about a fifth of Ukrainian land). This wouldn’t be a moral endorsement, but rather an acknowledgment of military reality. It’s unlikely that Ukraine could reclaim these regions without an extensive fight. Ukrainians may complain, but what else can they do?
Additionally, Ukraine might agree to refrain from officially joining NATO, which would address Russia’s inflated security concerns and remove one of Putin’s main justifications for aggression.
In exchange, Ukraine would gain immediate security assurances from major Western nations, akin to what Israel receives, along with a fast-tracked pathway to European Union membership.
Of course, Trump can’t unilaterally promise EU membership. But that’s part of his strategy—he excels at pushing the system into action when it might otherwise remain stagnant. By throwing his support behind Ukraine’s EU aspirations, he could prompt European leaders to scramble for solutions. Ukraine would then have to tackle its issues around corruption and fiscal policy.
There’s even the possibility that Russia could be offered a reduction of sanctions and pardons. At the same time, failure to agree might lead to hefty tariffs on anyone continuing trade with Moscow—definitive and audacious, typical Trump. It’s reminiscent of his recent announcements about the conflicts in Israel and Iran.
While a version of this plan might already be in the works, the details remain under wraps. His previous proposals have been met with skepticism, and this situation isn’t any different. It’s a complex geopolitical scenario, and while some of Trump’s ideas have seemed far-fetched (like previous plans regarding Gaza), it’s worth considering.
Critics often hark back to the Munich Agreement of 1938, when Western nations erroneously attempted to appease Hitler by conceding territory. While the analogy carries weight, it’s not always helpful.
History shows that there are examples of painful land concessions made to invaders that have brought about the end of conflicts and protected national sovereignty. Successful instances include resolutions that concluded the Korean War, various Indo-Pakistani wars, the Bosnian War of 1995, and the conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea in 2000. Syria is now contemplating an acknowledgment of some Israeli-held heights in order to reach a peace accord.
When concessions are made transparently, backed by deterrence and paired with rewards that reinforce state sovereignty, what seems like surrender can lead to an end to hostilities and even foster peace.
If Putin claims victory, that might happen. However, if Ukraine secures EU integration, security guarantees, and a stronger relationship with the West, the ultimate outcome would still be a setback for Putin.
And what if Putin turns down even that offer? At that point, Trump’s supporters might finally recognize that Russian aggression must be rigorously resisted. There aren’t easy exits from all battles.
